EVANGELINE ALDAY VS FGU INSURANCE
CORP
2001, J. Gonzaga-Reyes
FACTS
1) R
a) Complaint for collection of sum of
money
b) RTC Makati
c) Against petitioner Evangeline Alday
i) Alday owed FGU P114k
(1) Represents unliquidated cash
advances, unremitted costs of
premiums and other charges she
incurred by P in the course of
her work as FGUs insurance
agent)
2) P
a) Answer, with Counterclaim
i) Asserted her right for the payment of
(1) P104k
(a) Representing direct
commissions, profit
commissions and contingent
bonuses earned from 1986
(2) P500k
(a) Representing accumulated
premium reserves
b) Also prayed for attorney's fees, litigation
expenses, moral damages and
exemplary damages
3) R
a) "Motion to Strike Out Answer With
Compulsory Counterclaim And To Declare
Defendant In Default"
i) Alday's Answer was allegedly filed
out of time.
4) RTC
a) denied motion.
5) RTC
a) MR denied.
6) R
a) MTD P 's Counterclaim
i) RTC never acquired jurisdiction
because of Aldays non-payment
of docket fees
7) P
a) asked RTC
i) to declare her counterclaim as
exempt from payment of docket
fees, since said (Counterclaim) is
compulsory; and
ii) that FGU be declared in default for
having failed to answer such
counterclaim.
8) RTC
a) Granted Rs MTD, and consequently,
denied Ps motion.
9) RTC
a) Ps counterclaim merely permissive
in nature, and Ps failure to pay docket
fees prevented RTC from acquiring
jurisdiction over the same
10) CA
a) Sustained RTCs decision.
i) The allegations in Ps Answer show
that her counterclaim is merely
permissive, not compulsory
(1) That, indeed, FGU's cause of
action which is not supported by
any document other than the self-
serving 'Statement of Account'
(2) That it should be noted that the
cause of action of FGU is not the
enforcement of the Special
Agent's Contract but the alleged
'cash accountabilities
(3) A careful analysis of FGU's
complaint will show that its cause
of action is not for specific
performance or enforcement of
the Special Agent's Contract
rather, it is for the payment of the
alleged cash accountabilities
b) To support the heading "Compulsory
Counterclaim" in her answer and give
the impression that the counterclaim is
compulsory, P alleged that R has
unjustifiably failed to remit to defendant
despite repeated demands in violation of
their Special Agents Contract
c) Thus, while on one hand P alleged that
Rs cause of action had nothing to do
with the Special Agent's Contract, on the
other hand, she claimed that FGU
violated said contract which gave rise to
her cause of action.
11) Hence, present petition.
a) Alday:
i) FGU is estopped from questioning her
non-payment of docket fees because
it did not raise this issue when it filed
its motion (Motion to Strike out
Answer With Compulsory
Counterclaim And To Declare
Defendant In Default") with RTC
(1) FGU assailed RTCs jurisdiction 9
months after receiving her
answer
 ii) RTC should have declared FGU in
default for having failed to answer
her counterclaim
b) FGU: questions the jurisdiction of the CA
over the appeal filed by Alday
ISSUE/RATIO
1. W/N FGU is estopped from questioning
Aldays non-payment of docket fees. NO
a. Estoppel by laches arises from the
negligence to assert a right within a
reasonable time
b. In this case, the issue was raised by FGU
with the RTC itself, the body where the
action is pending, even before the
presentation of evidence and before any
judgment could be rendered
2. W/N FGU is estopped from questioning CAs
jurisdiction over Aldays appeal. YES
a. Although the lack of jurisdiction of a
court may be raised at any stage of the
action, a party may be estopped from
raising such questions if he has actively
taken part in the very proceedings
b. In this case, FGU actively took part in the
proceedings before CA by filing its
appellee's brief. It also failed to object to
CAs jurisdiction during the entire
duration of the proceedings.
3. W/N Aldays counterclaim is
compulsory or permissive in nature.
Counterclaim for commissions,
bonuses, and accumulated premium
reserves is merely permissive,
claims for damages, allegedly
suffered as a result of FGUs filing of
its complaint, are compulsory
a. Compulsory counterclaim is one
which arises out of or is connected
with the transaction or occurrence
constituting the subject matter of
the opposing party's claim
i. It does not require for its adjudication
the presence of third parties of whom
the court cannot acquire jurisdiction.
b. Tests in determining if a
counterclaim is compulsory
i. Valencia vs CA:
1) Are the issues of fact and
law raised by the claim and
counterclaim largely the
same?
2) Would res judicata bar a
subsequent suit on
defendant's claim absent the
compulsory counterclaim
rule?
3) Will substantially the same
evidence support or refute
plaintiff's claim as well as
defendant's counterclaim?
4) Is there any logical
relation between the claim
and the counterclaim?
ii. Quintanilla v. CA
1) Compelling test of
compulsoriness, which
requires a logical
relationship between the
claim and counterclaim
(i.e. where conducting
separate trials would
entail a substantial
duplication of effort and
time by the parties and
the court)
b. In CAB, P's counterclaim for
commissions, bonuses, and
accumulated premium reserves is
merely permissive
i. The evidence required to prove
her claims differs from that
needed to establish FGUs
demands for the recovery of cash
accountabilities
ii. The recovery of FGU's claims is
not contingent or dependent
upon establishing Alday's
counterclaim,
1) This conclusion is further
reinforced by Ps own
admissions, where P declared
in her Answer that FGU's
cause of action, unlike her
own, was not based upon the
Special Agent's Contract
iii. However, note that Ps claims
for damages allegedly
suffered as a result of the
filing by R of complaint are
compulsory
iv. Thus, for RTC to acquire
jurisdiction over her permissive
counterclaim, she is bound to
pay the prescribed docket fees.
1) But for her compulsory
counterclaim, no need.
v. Pursuant to the ruling in Sun
Insurance, RTC should have
instead given Alday a reasonable
time, but in no case beyond the
applicable prescriptive or
reglementary period, to pay the
filing fees for her permissive
counterclaim
1) It has not been alleged by FGU
and there is nothing to show that
Alday has attempted to evade the
payment of the proper docket
fees
2) Sun Insurance Office v. Hon.
Asuncion: Rule on the
payment of filing fees
a. It isthe payment of the
prescribed docket fee that
vests a trial court with
jurisdiction over the subject-
matter or nature of the action.
b. Where the filing of the
initiatory pleading is not
accompanied by payment of
the docket fee, the court may
allow payment of the fee
within a reasonable time but
in no case beyond the
applicable prescriptive or
reglementary period.
c. The same rule applies to
permissive counterclaims,
third-party claims and
similar pleadings.
4. W/N RTC should have declared FGU in
default for having failed to answer
Aldays counterclaim. NO
a. With regard to the permissive
counterclaim, there is no need to
file an answer until Alday has paid
the prescribed docket fees for only
then shall the court acquire jurisdiction
over such claim
b. With regard to the compulsory
counterclaim, there is no need to
file an answer since it is inseparable
from the claims of FGU
vi. If FGU were to answer, it would
merely result in FGU pleading
the same facts raised in its
complaint